By Thalif Deen - UNITED NATION – When the Security Council, the most powerful body at the United Nations, met last month to discuss the growing new threats to world peace and security, the discussion veered away from international terrorism, nuclear Armageddon and the rash of ongoing military conflicts in the Middle East, Asia and Africa.

And 83 of the 193 member states remained collectively focused on one of the greatest impending dangers to humanity: the devastation that could be triggered by climate change.

In an interview with IPS, Canada’s Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna best captured the grim scenario when she declared: “Whether the issue is desertification in parts of Africa, forced migration of vulnerable people in Central America, conflict over water scarcity, or rising sea levels and tropical storms for small island states, the security aspects of climate change are pressing and multifaceted.”

Addressing the Security Council, Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, Rosemary DiCarlo, warned that climate change affects peace and security in indirect but serious ways.

In the Sahel, she said, competition for resources has fuelled tensions between herders and farmers; in the Lake Chad Basin, drought has reduced economic opportunities and threatened the livelihoods of many who are turning to armed groups; and in Asia, studies have shown a link between the impact of climate change on livelihoods and the intensity of civil conflicts.

She also pointed out that climate-related displacement is “an acute problem which drives up local tension, as well as human trafficking and child exploitation.”

In her wide-ranging interview, the Canadian Minister said as part of her country’s $2.65 billion pledge to support developing countries in their mitigation and adaptation efforts, Canada has increased its adaptation support to the poorest and most vulnerable populations impacted by climate change.

This funding includes support for Small Island Developing States (SIDS), some of them, including the Maldives, Tuvalu and Kiribati, are in danger of being wiped off the face of the earth because of sea-level rise.

Excerpts from the interview:

IPS: The United Nations has recognized climate change as one of the greatest long-term challenges to international peace and security. How best would you characterize these challenges?

MINISTER McKENNA: The impact of climate change goes beyond the environment. At the national, regional and global levels, climate change is having a significant effect on economies, social development and peace and security, particularly in fragile contexts where it is a threat multiplier to governance challenges.

The increased frequency, severity and magnitude of extreme weather events all over the world – one of the most immediate and visible results of climate change– will likely continue to generate humanitarian crises.

Canada also recognizes that women and girls are disproportionately affected by the adverse effects of the changing climate and we stress the importance of addressing their needs as countries build back better.

Canada’s International Assistance and Defence Policies recognize that climate change poses a serious security challenge and must be addressed to sustain development and peace and security gains.

The Government of Canada believes that an integrated approach to addressing climate change is essential to fully account for social, economic, political and security impacts globally and that multilateral consensus is key to achieving sustainable development, peace and security, noting the importance of involving women and girls in decision-making around environment and climate action issues.

IPS: The countries most vulnerable to climate change are the 57 small island developing states (SIDS)—some of whom like the Maldives, Tuvalu and Kiribati, may be wiped off the face of the earth due to sea level rise and natural disasters. Do you think the international community – and specifically the United Nations – is adequately responding to these dangers with concrete actions on climate resilience and funding for adaptation?

MINISTER McKENNA: Climate change is a global challenge that requires a global solution. At COP21 in Paris, the global community came together to strengthen the global response to climate change including by: enhancing adaptive capacity and reducing vulnerability to climate change; providing financial resources to support developing countries in their transition toward a lower carbon future; and holding the average global temperature increase to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, while striving to limit the increase to 1.5°C.

With the adoption of the Paris Rulebook in 2018, all countries including major economies are moving forward with this commitment.

As part of Canada’s $2.65B pledge to support developing countries in their mitigation and adaptation efforts, Canada has increased its adaptation support to the poorest and most vulnerable populations impacted by climate change. This funding includes support for Small Island Developing States (SIDS).

Canada is providing $60M to establish a Renewable Energy in Small Island Developing States Program at the World Bank to support the planning and construction of renewable energy infrastructure, energy efficiency and battery storage solutions.

Canada is providing $300M to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to advance projects that support the transition of SIDS, Least Developed Countries, and African States towards clean and climate-resilient economies.

Of note, the GCF is supporting the Pacific Islands Renewable Energy Investment Program in seven SIDS (the Cook Islands, Tonga, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Papua New Guinea, Nauru and Samoa), which is expected to reduce 120,000 tonnes of Co2 per year, while increasing the penetration of renewables in these markets.

Canada is providing $30M to respond to the urgent adaptation needs of developing countries through the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF). As of 2016, the Fund has approved US$1B for projects in 40 countries, including nine SIDS, such as Tuvalu, the Maldives, and Kiribati.

IPS: In November 2015, during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting (CHOGM) in Malta, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced grants amounting to $2.65 billion over a five year period to help developing nations in their battle against climate change. With 2020 as the expiry date, how much of these funds have been disbursed and who are the recipients? Will there be further grants after 2020?

MINISTER McKENNA: Canada is delivering $2.65B in climate finance to developing countries. To date, over $1.5B worth of projects have been announced in the form of grants and concessional financing. This pledge covers FY 2015/16 to 2020/21.

Funding beyond 2020/21 will require a decision from the Government of Canada.

IPS: The scarcity of water, triggered primarily by climate change, is also responsible for current and past water conflicts and marine disputes, including confrontations between Israel and Jordan, India and Pakistan, Egypt and Ethiopia, Palestine and Israel, (not excluding Bolivia, Peru and Chile.). Do you think the situation will get any worse with new conflicts on the horizon?

MINISTER McKENNA: Canada recognizes that water, if not governed effectively in a fair and inclusive manner, can act as a conflict driver.

Water in abundance may lead to devastating floods, while water scarcity leads to drought, both of which have significant political, social, environmental and economic implications.

The acceleration of climate change, the increased frequency of drought and flooding, the increasing variation in water flows, the growing volume of hydro generation necessary for agriculture, energy production and human consumption are all conspiring to make access to water, water management and water security a critical global challenge.

Areas that are already struggling with challenges, such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, and/or fragile political institutions, are particularly vulnerable to these changes.

Canada also recognises that women are the most susceptible to bear the impacts of these changes, and of potential ensuing conflicts.

In the future, problems such as water shortage, low water quality, or floods are increasingly likely to exacerbate existing social tensions. This can undermine economic development in various countries and could increase the risk of instability.

However, despite the complexity of the challenges, water is also a resource for collaboration. While the past 50 years have seen approximately 40 cases of acute violent water conflicts, they have also given rise to over 150 water treaties around the world.

Water-related disputes between states have typically been resolved through diplomatic channels; however, the past will not necessarily be a good predictor of the future, as climate change will increasingly amplify existing water challenges at the local, national, regional and global levels.

Still, diplomatic engagement can be a tool for addressing water, peace and security challenges. Canadian diplomatic and development efforts focus on reducing instability and the human tragedy posed by climate change, including through reducing risks and increasing resiliency with respect to natural disasters, forced migration, food insecurity and water scarcity.

We also believe that women should be at the forefront of our interventions addressing these issues, and we ensure that Canada’s initiatives systematically integrate gender.

IPS: The threat of sea level rise, caused by climate change, could also result in a new category of “environmental refugees” fleeing from their sinking homelands to neighboring countries. Shouldn’t the 1951 UN convention be amended to include this new category of refugees?

MINISTER McKENNA: Decisions on actions the Government of Canada may take in the event of natural disasters are taken on a case-by-case basis.

For refugees resettled from abroad, Canada relies on referrals from the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) or another designated referral organization, or a private sponsorship group.

Generally speaking, in order to be considered for resettlement to Canada, individuals must be a Convention refugee as defined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

A Convention refugee is “a person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons or race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, (a) is outside each of their countries of nationality and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of each of those countries or (b) not having a country of nationality, is outside the country of their former habitual residence and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to return to that country.

IPS: How is Canada’s own environmental policies in relation to emissions, pollution, clean technology, renewable energy, marine conservation — and also its contribution to the UN’s Green Climate Fund (GCF)?”

MINISTER McKENNA: The Pan-Canadian Framework (PCF) on Clean Growth and Climate Change is Canada’s plan to take ambitious action to fight climate change.

The PCF is built on four pillars: 1) pricing carbon pollution, 2) complementary actions to reduce emissions across the economy, 3) adaptation and climate resilience and 4) clean technology, innovation, and jobs; and includes more than fifty concrete actions that cover all sectors of the Canadian economy.

Additional emissions reductions will come from measures that have not yet been modelled; including increases in carbon sequestered through forests and agricultural lands, investments in green infrastructure, public transit, and clean technology and innovation, as well as future actions by federal, provincial and territorial governments.

In the PCF, Canada committed to become a global leader on clean technology innovation. The federal government has since announced $2.3 billion in clean technology investments, including nearly $1.4 billion in financing dedicated to supporting clean technology firms and $400 million to support the development and demonstration of clean technologies.

Though 80% of Canada’s electricity already comes from non-emitting sources such as hydroelectricity, solar and wind, Canada has set a goal to increase this portion to 90% by 2030. In support of this goal, Canada has committed to invest $26.9 billion in green infrastructure, a portion of which will support renewable energy projects.

Furthermore, Canada is working to reduce emissions from its existing fossil fuel fired electricity generation, passing final legislation in December 2018 that will phase-out traditional coal-fired electricity by 2030 and limit GHG emissions from natural gas-fired electricity generation.

The United Nations Security Council voted 14 in favor and none against, with one abstention. Russian ambassador to the UN Vassily Nebenzia casted the only abstained vote saying at the time his delegation didn’t vote in favor for Mr. Brammertz since the situation within the Residual Mechanism “was far from cloudless”, mentionoing his objections on MICT administration, staffing and “approaches to justice”. Russian envoy complained about Bosnian Serb general Ratko Mladić (who was convicted for genocide in Srebrenica), saying “he had repeatedly been denied release from detention for medical treatment in the Russian Federation despite exhaustive guarantees by that country”.

In a exclusive interview for Webpublicapress (WPP), Mr. Brammertz, the former prosecutor of Belgium (Prosecutor-General at the Liège Court of Appeal), academic, author and internationally acclaimed jurist talked about Mladić’s and other UN court cases, and other issues related to criticism of the IYTY work, but also about the future of UN established Residual Mechanism.

Mr. Brammertz who also served on the Justice and Internal Affairs committee of the European Commission and led major research studies on cases of cross-border corruption and trafficking in human beings in Central Europe and the Balkans also talked about future of the Western Balkans – reconciliation and EU values and prospective.

(WPP) – Now at the end of one era – of almost a quarter century of United Nations formed International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia can you tell what is the most important lesson that you have learned and that has to be shared with public?

Serge Brammertz (SB): Every ICTY Prosecutor learned a lot of lessons in carrying out our responsibilities.

The ICTY achieved credible results over its 24 years of existence. We prosecuted many of the most responsible for the crimes, and secured landmark convictions. We uncovered the truth of what happened during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and significantly contributed to the development of international criminal law. Yet, it took us 24 years to complete our mandate.

Serge Brammertz (WPP photo archive)

But what I have learned is that unlike normal criminal prosecutions, investigating complex war crimes takes time. My experience as Prosecutor has taught me that often, we have to accept that to be successful, more time is needed than we would necessarily wish.

We need to understand the crimes first, but then we had to undertake difficult investigative activities to gather the evidence we needed to link for example Karadzic and Mladic to those crimes, such as the testimonies of insider witnesses and documentary evidence we were eventually able to obtain from archives. In prosecuting these cases, experience has shown that there are no shortcuts and no substitutes.

And what is your biggest regret?

There are of course many areas where we could have done more. I am very well aware how much we did not accomplish, and how much remains to be done. My Office must regard the acquittals in cases like Gotovina, Haradinaj, Orić and Perišić as setbacks, because we were convinced that we had the evidence to prove their guilt yet the Judges did not agree. And there are still so many victims waiting for justice today, or who do not yet know the fate of their loved ones.

Supporting local courts

But for me, recognizing what the ICTY did not achieve is the motivation to now continue working to support our colleague prosecutors in the region. For many years, the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor was in the driver’s seat. Now, our national colleagues are in charge and have to set the direction. We will provide them our full support and assistance, because the task ahead is immense. I trust in their professionalism, but I worry that they do not have the same kind of political support that my Office always enjoyed. The governments in the region have not sufficiently shown that they have the courage to support war crimes justice, acknowledge the wrongdoings of the past and promote reconciliation.

- You are now the chief prosecutor of the Residual Mechanism, how it will actually work: Will the Mechanism be under the UN umbrella (will you report to UN Security Council regularly)?

The UN Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (‘MICT’) was established in 2010 by the UN Security Council, as the legal successor to both the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (‘ICTR’)and the ICTY. In my capacity as MICT Prosecutor, the UN Security Council has directed that I report every six on the activities of my Office both in Arusha and The Hague.

- How much it will cost (yearly budget projections) – bearing in mind that one of the biggest objection for ICTY besides being too slow for so many years – is that it has spent a fortune?

ICTY had a staff of 425 from 69 nationalities; how many people will work for the MICT?

There were times when theICTY had even more employees. As far as the MICT Office of the Prosecutor is concerned, our office is lean, as the Security Council directed. The exact number of staff depends on our judicial activities and it will change over time; currently, there is one re-trial (Stanisic and Simatovic) and three appeal proceedings (Seselj /was completed on February 26 – 2018/, Karadzic and Mladic) on-going in The Hague. We also need staff to pursue and hopefully arrest the 8 fugitives indicted by the ICTR. Over time, however, there is no question that my Office will become smaller.

3000 War criminals in Bosnia

- You have said that you will support the domestic courts in Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia etc., but are you

Brammertz UN photo Rick Bajornas 2016

confident that, for example in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where are, as you said according to the biggest Bosnian daily newspaper “Avaz” (www.avaz.ba) – “around 3.000 cases” war criminals) – will be able to prosecute them in certain amount of time; after all, it took 24 years for ICTY to prosecute only 161 cases?

I fully trust that my colleagues in the region recognize their professional responsibility to deal with the huge number of remaining cases. Prosecutors in BiH have the biggest number of cases, but there are still many cases to be processed in Serbia and Croatia as well. But this is truly a regional issue, and to achieve results, investigators, prosecutors and judges from throughout the region will have to play their part. Without judicial cooperation within the Western Balkans countries, national accountability for war crimes is impossible. At the moment, regional cooperation is at a low point. As was the case in the past, my Office continues to work with its regional and European partners to advance regional cooperation and national war crimes prosecutions.

- You also said, ICTY enjoyed support from Brussels and Washington, can you tell us precisely what kind of support it was and will it continue with the Residual Mechanism?

TheICTY indeed received support not only from Brussels and Washington but also from many other countries. The ICTY could not have achieved its mandates without the continued diplomatic and political support it received. The biggest challenge my Office faced was securing the cooperation of the States of the former Yugoslavia, particularly to access evidence and arrest of fugitives. For many years, governments of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and particularly Serbia, refused to provide cooperation, hindering our investigations and delaying our trials. In overcoming these challenges, the conditionality policy of the US and EU proved critical. For instance, by linking progress in the EU accession process to full cooperation with my Office, conditionality policies resulted in the arrest of all remaining fugitives, notably Gotovina, Karadzic and Mladic.

Support continues

- This support will continue with the Mechanism, but even more importantly, national prosecutors and judges need the same support today so that they can overcome challenges and achieve results.

What do you tell those who see and complain about the support of chief Western Powers to the ICTY seeing that in fact as a “political pressure”? Did you have the same or different a support or “pressure” from Russia?

I must underline that I never felt political pressure of any kind, and the professionals in my Office always took decisions based on the evidence and the law. My Office received significant support from countries that believe those responsible for committing horrific international crimes must be brought to justice. We are immensely grateful, as without that support our mission would have been truly impossible. That of course includes Russia, which as a member of the Security Council provided valuable support to the OTP in different forms, including by creating the ICTY.

- You said war in Bosnia (from 1992 – to 1995) was not civil war but an aggression: Was it aggression from Serbia, and if so – how come that we didn’t see more clear reflection in the case of Ratko Mladic who was one of the generals on the pay-roll of Serbian?

I think you may have misunderstood me. I have clearly said that my Office proved on numerous occasions that different forces from Serbia and Croatia participated in the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that some leaders of these forces committed crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide. The crime of aggression is not a crime over which the ICTY/MICT has jurisdiction, so that is not a term that we use.

The crimes are crimes

What do you thing about those putting sign of equity between the role of Croatia and Serbia when it

Brammertz June 2015 UN New York UN Photo Eskinder Debebe

comes to Bosnian, although this journalist doesn’t agree with this? Also, it can not be equity between Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic with Slobodan Praljak and Jadranko Prlic … Croatian forces did not commit genocide in Bosnia, but rather were helpful in saving Bihac for example? Is this comparison somehow wrong?

As I have stressed many times in the past, the ICTY prosecuted individuals and not states, parties, peoples, or entities. Our job was to bring to justice those who bore the greatest responsibility for the crimes. As I said after Ratko Mladic was convicted at trial, his guilt is his and his alone, and we reject in the strongest terms claims that this was a verdict against the Serbian people.

The question you are asking is not for prosecutors, but for historians and others. What I will say is that all the crimes we prosecuted were horrific and shocked the conscience of humanity. Each victim deserves our fullest sympathy and respect for their suffering.

Whole Bosnia suffered

-ICTY rejected the claim that genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina was committed also in six municipalities other than Srebrenica: What are your thoughts as a jurist and someone who is familiar with the evidence? Is it fair to say that genocide was committed actually in whole Bosnia and Herzegovina, or how to formulate this?

In a number of cases my Office successfully proved that different individuals were guilty of committing Genocide in Srebrenica in 1995.We have also charged some of our accused persons with genocide for the crimes committed in a number of municipalities throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992. So far, the Trial Chambers have refused to enter convictions for the latter. My Office consistently appealed those decisions; we are currently awaiting the Appeals Chamber’s decision in the Karadzic case and we are considering whether to appeal the Mladic Trial Chamber’s decision on this issue.

It goes without saying that if I strongly believe that the evidence in our possession is sufficient to prove genocide in the municipalities. Otherwise, I would not have brought those charges nor appealed the acquittals.

- Why the ICTY and you personally were not more aggressive and persistent in seeking Vojislav Seselj to be brought back to Hague by the Serbian authorities? One would get the impression that this is done for political reasons – to help Aleksandar Vucic to push Serbia toward the EU? Is this at the expense of justice?

The Judges decided that his attendance was not required for the pronouncement of the trial judgment in his case. That was based on their interpretation of our rules of procedure. I strongly reject the suggestion that political factors influenced the decision. After all, the ICTY President and my Office were strongly critical of Serbia’s non-cooperation in the Jojic et al. contempt case.

- Was the release of Seselj for “medical reasons,” because of the “cancer metastasis“, which he oddly surprised was a farce to which the ICTY agreed and what do you hope in your appeal to the Trial Chamber in that case?

Serge Brammertz photo www. unmict.org

My Office appealed the acquittal of Seselj on two grounds: first, that the Trial Chamber erred in law by failing to deliver a reasoned judgment, and second, that the Trial Chamber erred in fact by acquitting Seselj, as no reasonable trier of fact could have found him, on the basis of the evidence, not guilty of all the charges. The appeal judgment is expected on 11 April 2018. We hope that our appeal will be granted.

- What do you expect, is your voice and opinion – through the MICT will be heard or even taken as condition sine qua non when EU will be deciding whether Serbia, and to that respect Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and others will be about to join EU?

The decision to welcome Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, as new EU member states is a decision that is entirely up to the European Union and its Member States. However, as has been the case in the past, EU Member States will probably be interested in and give due consideration to my Office’s assessments of the progress made in domestic war crimes prosecutions by candidate and potential candidate countries.

European values

- But, should Serbia join EU with this level of cooperation with International Justice; Serbia or Croatia, now member of EU didn’t follow the example of Germany and France, instead they are still hostages of Balkan’s burden past?

In countries like Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, we see the desperate need for European values and institutions. But we also have to ask ourselves whether their leaders are truly willing and able to make the necessary changes, not just in their laws, but in their mindset.

One thing is clear to me as a European citizen: when it comes to the accession process, the EU must insist that it is a community of values, including in particular the rule of law, and refuse to compromise on these principles. An important test will be whether the countries of the former Yugoslavia continue what we started at the ICTY by independently and impartially prosecuting war crimes in their national courts.

I would agree with you that the situation is moving in the wrong direction. Dangerous ideas from the past seem to have gained in strength again. Sentenced war criminals are more and more often glorified as heroes. The facts established by the ICTY are being denied by a number of irresponsible politicians. But, I certainly hope that the new generations will be able to overcome the ghosts of the past and to realistically evaluate events from the 90’s.

How long it will take to overcome this since ICTY didn’t bring the reconciliation? Yet, do you think – did it help reconcile at least some historical misunderstanding?

ICTY alone cannot bring reconciliation. The facts established in the Tribunal’s judgments can be one of the vehicles for reconciliation. But reconciliation can only be achieved with active participation of political structures in the countries of the Western Balkans and people in those countries.

The time it will take is very hard to predict but if we compare the situation in Europe when it emerged from the Second World Warto the situation today in the Western Balkans, not as much progress has been made as we would have hoped. As early as 1951, six European countries, including France and Germany, founded the ancestor of the European Union. Today, politicians in the Western Balkans countries are still debating the same issues as in 1990 and cannot agree on simple questions, let alone on a shared understanding of the recent past. However, I have full confidence in the younger generations, who I often meet with and who I hope will resist making the same mistakes of the past.

Archive of documents

- Where the ICTY millions of documents and your Archive will be situated? Are Balkan institutions safe

UN Tribunal for War Crimes in Former Yugoslavia (WPP photo archive)

and sound to keep them well – these documents not to be hurt from an unwanted event?

The final location of the archives will be decided by the Security Council, but for the foreseeable future they will be kept in The Hague.

But the judicial records of our proceedings are available to the public. They can be accessed through the website, and in the future there will hopefully be more places where “copies” of the archives will be accessible.

By Thalif Deen – UNITED NATIONS - Faced with growing allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) in the UN system, Secretary-General Antonio Guterreslast year announced a “zero-tolerance” policy to fight harassment in the world body.

But UN Women, which was created in July 2010 and dedicated to gender empowerment, has moved one step further– and appointed an Executive Coordinator and Spokesperson on Sexual Harassment and Discrimination, perhaps one of the few UN bodies to do so.

Holding that new position is Dr. Purna Sen, Director of Policy at UN Women, who under the newly-created role, will build on the current momentum “to find lasting solutions to stop, prevent and respond to sexual harassment both, within and outside the UN.”

Asked whether there have been any charges of sexual abuse or sexual harassment at UN Women, she told IPS that in 2015, one case of sexual harassment was reported: theallegations, which involved a contractor for UN Women, were substantiated, and the contract was immediately terminated.

In 2016, she said, two cases of allegations of sexual harassment were reported. None of the allegations were substantiated.

In 2017, there was one case of allegations of sexual misconduct against one UN Women staff member. The case is still under investigation.

As part of her mandate, Dr Senwill be calling upon and supporting states, government administrations and the private sector to ensure actions are taken to respond to women’s experiences of sexual harassment.

She begins her assignment with two calls: firstly, asking women to share their experiences of sexual harassment and assault and secondly, asking for examples of good practices, policies and laws dealing with harassment.

Announcing Dr Sen’s appointment, UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director PhumzileMlambo-Ngcuka said: “UN Women was established to protect and promote women’s rights. We have a unique role to play in driving action towards accountability.”

“This means zero tolerance for violence and harassment, and actions to ensure that victims are supported. We currently see practices and cultural norms that enable harassment and penalize victims. This has to change.

”In her new role and with her directly relevant background, Purna will help address the deep-rooted patterns of inequality and abuse of women”, she declared.

In an interview with IPS, Dr Sen also responded to charges of “reverse sexual harassments” and the status of gender parity in the UN system.

Excerpts from the interview:
IPS: What is your response to charges of sexual harassment in reverse – where some high ranking UN officials point out cases where “women staffers throw themselves on their bosses to advance their careers?.”

Dr Sen: “Let’s decipher that statement: is it claimed that women are offering sex for jobs or promotion? If so, surely there are some clear responses.

Any muddying of professionalism, competency and recruitment with matters of sexual behaviour is inappropriate and not for defending. That holds whether it is powerful, high ranking officials (mostly men) or junior staff (more likely to be women, young people, national staff etc). Sexual activities in exchange for career advancement is of course unacceptable.

This possibility or practice must not be treated either as a distraction from the seriousness or ubiquity of gendered, structured sex discrimination that is manifest in sexual harassment, abuse and assault or riposte to accusations.

Those men in high ranking positions making these allegations have no doubt had the opportunity to use their positions to raise this issue over their careers. Has this been done? Or are these issues being raised now when women are calling for accountability for those who abuse?

Treating sexual harassment as isolated incidents, or as incomprehensible acts of individuals (as the formulation in the question suggests) is problematic. It leads to obfuscation or denial of the structural and systemic basis of sexual harassment and assault: these are expressions of patterns of unequal power structures where powerful men (predominantly) hold authority and control over junior staff (more likely to be women, local staff.) such that they can influence their careers or experiences at work.

Denial, distraction and excusing of sexual harassment and assault illustrate cultures where the seriousness and harm of harassment is not recognised or prioritized”.

IPS: A General Assembly resolution going back to the 1970s — and reaffirmed later– called for 50:50 gender parity amongst UN staffers, particularly in decision-making posts. How is UN women conforming to this resolution? What is the breakdown of your staff in numbers between men and women?

Dr Sen: UN Women is supporting the SG’s gender parity efforts through its unique mandate to lead and coordinate the UN system’s work on gender equality, as well as promote accountability, including through regular monitoring of system-wide progress.

UN Women is also a source of substantive guidance on gender parity and related issues for the UN system, and serves as a repository for best practices, provides guidance and tools, and analyses overall UN system trends to identify obstacles to and key drivers of change in advancing towards equal representation.

Additionally, UN Women supports interagency knowledge-sharing and collaboration, as well as capacity building of gender expertise, through system-wide gender networks, including the Gender Focal Points, IANWGE and the UN-SWAP network

Another important step UN Women is taking is the upcoming development of the Guidelines on Enabling Environment, containing system-wide recommendations and practical measures aimed at creating a work environment that is free from discrimination, harassment and abuse of authority, as well as supports women in their careers through family-friendly policies, work-life balance and professional development programmes.

As of today our overall workforce breakdown is 71% female; 29% male.
IPS: What is your response to the argument that jobs in the UN system should go to the most qualified and the most competent – rather than based on gender equality?

Dr Sen: “The problem with this question is that it assumes a contradiction between being ‘the most qualified and the most competent’ on the one hand, and the pursuit of gender equality, on the other. That is a false premise. It assumes that the goal of gender equality jettisons competency and good qualification.

What lies behind this assumption is the belief that women (for it is in general the appointment of greater numbers of women that makes up actions towards gender equality in staffing or representatives’ profiles) cannot be the best qualified or the most competent.

Therein lies a fully gendered belief in the essential incompetence of women and, in contrast, the innate competence of men. I reject that assumption and there are many examples that support such rejection.

In a nutshell, women can be and are both competent and qualified, including the most competent and qualified, in any sector. More pertinent is the question why is it that competent and qualified women are not being appointed?

The same gendered assumption that pre-supposes that women can be neither, is what stops their true talents, skills and competencies being recognized and rewarded. Cultures of gender inequality are insidious and have long passed their expiry date.

Answering to a question weather UN learned its Bosnian lessons to be applied on other, this former Bosnian highest ranking diplomat at the UN said there are also two critical differences, between Bosnia then (1992 – 1995) and Myanmar (Burma) now.

“We, Bosnia and Herzegovina had our government to defend the targeted populations from genocide while in this instance the Burmese Regime, regardless of the rhetoric of change, has not only failed to protect but appears to be instigator and perpetrator. Also, this does not have the characteristic of an international aggression but rather “Crimes against humanity” whether committed by rouge elements or the Regime. The similarities also reflect the delays, in effect avoidance by the international community to respond affirmatively as is the obligation under the Genocide Convention, and as was seen in Darfur.

WPP - What would be your suggestions or advise to United Nations Secretary General based on your UN experience, how to handle or navigate this issues among divided global interests including Trump’s Administration hesitation to sanction regime in Myanmar?

WPP – Knowing what we know and having those mistakes from war in Bosnia that as UN secretaries general Kofi Annan first said, and then repeated by his successors Ban Ki-moon and now Antonio Guterres – haunt our history and the United Nations – how Myanmar should be treated in order to avoid obvious?

UN on East River (Photo by Hajat Avdovic Webpublicapress)

“The culpability of the Myanmar regime and its officials should be referred to the ICC (International Criminal Court). This of course may not stop the perpetrators NOW. However, it will give them pause from feeling and acting as if most UN Security Council (UNSC) members are either willing to look away or simply claim helplessness. Beijing here must be particularly put in position to rein in the Regime or be exposed. The Regime (in Myanmar) sees China on the UNSC as in effect being an ally and shield. In meantime, maximize humanitarian assistance and review options for protective force, or at least observers, to halt the “ethnic cleansing” and perhaps facilitate some return. Particularly if return is not safe, not possible consider claims of damages, remedies for the targeted victims, something that can be pursued via the Rome Statute and ICC.

WPP – What are your thoughts on Aung San Suu Kyi (ASSK) – Nobel laureate who has disappointed many with her silence? Perhaps you have advise for her?

“Four or five years ago I wrote an article for The Huffington Post, “Anug San Sui Kyi, Silence to Genocide.” Now, it is evident that it is more, and I would investigate ASSK for “complicity.” Her excuses and denials have provided cover for the crimes and their extension. As a Nobel winner she has a special obligation because she is credited with higher ethics and sensitivity to such crimes committed against any group or individual. If nothing else, as member of the Myanmar Government she is legally duty bound to confront crimes within her own circle. During the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I was always cognizant of this responsibility even if not always successful. We believed that we had an obligation to all the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was Karadzic, Mladic and (Slobodan) Milosevic (former president of Serbia, accused for war crimes in Kosovo war 1999, died in ICTY custody on March 11 – 2006, without being sentenced)of who identified “Bosniaks” as targets for genocide and sought to have the Sarajevo Government respond in kind. We understood both this ethical, legal and political trap – all the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina were our responsibility. In this instance, ASSK and her Government do not recognize this responsibility but are making it worse by denying the identity and humanity as well as citizenship of Rohingya. They refuse to even call them by such name.”

WPP – So you have no doubt that Aung San is complicit and should be hel accountable now?

“ASSK again has been complicit or at least not living up to her Nobel Laureate. I have not received the same honors, recognition as ASSK. Nonetheless, having been the diplomatic, public face of Bosnian victims I understand it my duty to speak for Yazidi, Christianor Rohingya, and whether the perpetrator is ISIS or Burmese Government. ASSK has enjoyed a much greater recognition but now it appears not only undeserved but has been employed to further ethnic cleansing. Like me, ASSK has been a guest of Bono (Vox) at his home in Ireland a few years ago, and those that have been duped by ASSK also now have an obligation to expose her and demand a response consistent of the person we thought she was. I used to be a supporter of ASSK in her efforts to transform Myanmar to the country she verbally advocated. Having failed us and some of her citizens she must be held accountable, perhaps via the rule of law but certainly by our clear demand for her to be accountable and responsive.”

]]>http://webpublicapress.net/da-nije-bilo-un-tribunala-ne-bi-bilo-daytona/feed/0Verdict to Mladić is Important for Reconciliationhttp://webpublicapress.net/verdict-to-mladic-important-for-reconciliation/
http://webpublicapress.net/verdict-to-mladic-important-for-reconciliation/#commentsMon, 27 Nov 2017 03:52:54 +0000http://webpublicapress.net/?p=28745

Adama Dieng, Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide of the United Nations during the press conference. 10 March 2014. UN Photo by Jean-Marc Ferré

Interview by Erol Avdović - The United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Special Adviser for prevention of genocide Adama Dieng, expressed his full satisfaction with the verdict given to Bosnian Serb Commander Ratko Mladićwho was sentencend life in prison for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Dieng told Webpublicapress (WPP)although nothing can erase the horrors of Bosnian war, at least victims “can now have the comfort of knowing that Mr. Mladić will face punishment appropriate to the crimes he committed.”

A worldwide known Senegalese jurist, who was appointed by UN to leads its Office for Prevention of Genocide in September 2012, who also served Registrar of the International UN Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (appointed by UN Secretary-GeneralKofi Annan, in January 2001) also stressed justice alone will not be enough in the Balkan region. Dieng recognized the glorification of war criminals, discrimination and prejudice is a problem – but verdict to Mladić is a important step ahead – toward wished reconciliation.

(Webpublicapress – WPP) The end of work for the UN Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) comes with the verdict delivered against Bosnian Serb general Ratko Mladić who was sentenced life in prison for his role in Bosnian war – including committed acts of genocide: Yet, what do you say to those who say – justice delayed – justice denied? After all, ICTY was working for almost 25 years, since may 1993.

Adama Dieng talking to the press (Courtesy photo for education only)

Adama Dieng - This verdict renders justice to those who suffered as a result of the atrocity crimes committed by Mr. Mladić. Nothing can erase the horrors of the past, but they can now have the comfort of knowing that Mr. Mladić will face punishment appropriate to the crimes he committed. This verdict provides victims with some measure of redress so that they can move forward with their lives. Prosecutions, even if delayed, recognize the suffering of the victims and their families and contribute to the restoration of some of the dignity or integrity that was lost or severely damaged. Ideally, of course, it is paramount for justice to be timely to be the most impactful and effective. Delays in judicial processes, particularly those that follow events where extreme acts of violence were committed against innocent people, can have several negative effects, not only for the victims as well as to societies and the prevention of future crimes. On the contrary, the confidence that justice has been served and that those responsible for serious crimes are being held accountable helps prevent feelings of frustration, bitterness and the possible desire for revenge of victims, their families and those who share ethnic, religious, racial or national origins.

WPP – You have stated many times that UN and International Community “should strengthen efforts to build inclusive, peaceful societies.” Are you satisfied with this verdict in that particular sense – of building that kind of society in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

Adama Dieng - I have expressed my satisfaction about this verdict. The verdict by the ICTY against Ratko Mladić sends a clear message that there is no space for impunity and that justice will prevail. Criminal accountability is not only about the past but is also about the future. Accountability constitutes a critical component of prevention and also an important step on the path to reconciliation. In a region where we are seeing denial of some of the most heinous crimes committed during the armed conflict and the glorification of war criminals, justice alone will not lead to reconciliation, but there can be no real reconciliation without justice. I hope that this verdict, as well as past decisions by the ICTY, will encourage the region to think about what happened, learn the lessons of the past and chart a future that fully acknowledges those lessons.

Comparison with Myanmar

WPP - Finally, could this verdict be a rather universal message that there should be no place for racism and xenophobia, ethnic or religion discrimination, since Ratko Mladić was accused for ethnically cleansing Bosnian Muslims — only because they were Muslims?

Adama Dieng – Of course. The work developed throughout these years by the

Adama Dieng UN photo (WPP file)

ad hoc tribunals of the former Yugoslavia and of Rwanda, the work of the hybrid courts in Sierra Leone or Cambodia, and more recently, the work of the International Criminal Court, provide a testimony and account of events that should never be forgotten, so not to be repeated. They certainly send a message that there is no place in our world for the most barbaric acts of discrimination. The lessons that history teaches us are important for our future. Knowing what happened in the past and who was responsible and why, is an invaluable tool to help prevent recurrence, to put in place early warning mechanisms and in general, to develop strategies for prevention of future acts of violence that have discrimination at their core.

WPP – In that context I have to ask you about Myanmar which one can easily compare with recent Bosnian history: The UN High Commissioner for human rights Prince Zeid bin Ra’ad Zeid al-Husseinsaid the suffering of Rohingya Muslimsis ethnic cleansing, and some even say it is a genocide: Does UN and International Community make same “Bosnian mistake” – waiting to long for action?

Adama Dieng – Each situation is unique and has its own complexities. However, certainly there is a parallel as acts of violence that may amount to international crimes are reportedly being committed against a group because of its religious and ethnic identity. I have been following for years the situation in northern Rakhine state and have warned on several occasions about the risk factors that indicated the potential commission of atrocity crimes in northern Rakhine state. These included very deeply rooted and long-standing discriminatory practices and policies against the Rohingya Muslims population, a failure to stop acts of violence against that group and a failure to put in place conditions that would support the peaceful coexistence of different communities in Rakhine state. Despite the warnings, both the Government of Myanmar as well as the international community have failed their obligations under international law and their responsibilities to protect the Rohingya community from atrocity crimes. Unfortunately, the international community is slow at learning from past mistakes. Inaction to stop these crimes makes us complicit to it.